The stills, sets and props look very low budget and not very creative.

Quote:

It's details like this that have me worried.

Really? I was thinking very creative (within the genre, of course.) If you didn't like the earlier installments of MM, could it be that is what's influencing your judgement here? Give me some examples of what you were expecting.

I do like the original MM look for 1980s - but times have changed and this higher budgeted reboot looks exactly the same.

An example is Aliens - great sets great props great action. Cameron took what Ridley Scott, Geiger and Mobius did and shaped it into his own and added his own flourishes to enhance the previous film - The Sulaco, Power Loader, APC, Drop ship, USCM Armor, Pulse Rifile, Alien Queen, Terra Formers etc. He didn't just take the old sets, costumes and props and start filming - he advanced the visual style and broadened the world.

There are plenty of New 2014 American Hotrods - real bad ass Muscle car Iron - that would have looked amazing decked out all post apocalyptic - hell maybe a Prius dead on the side of the road would have been funny as hell too.

If Max gets skittish from a lizard he is in deep do-do then and not much of a "warrior".

Mr Webber wrote:

hirohawa wrote:

The stills, sets and props look very low budget and not very creative. It really looks like they found all the old stuff rom the eighties and just filmed it with better cameras and lenses. The almost pristine condition off the shelf Glock just looks…odd - especially in Max's hand - it's just weird not to see him with a shotgun.

Why does he step on the lizard in the trailer? Max did not seem like a cruel person especially to small helpless animals.

It's details like this that have me worried.

There`s two reasons that Miller used the style of vehicle he did, the first based in art, the second in reality. Firstly they look KICKARSE, have designs that welcome modification and provide a bridge to the past. The second reason based on reality is that in the event of worldwide nuclear devastation any vehicles made after 1985 or abouts would all be rendered permanently useless. Who wants to see a bunch of Priuses running around the desert anyway?

It makes total sense that Max carries a Glock, this is 2015 Max not 1985 Max, the events in the movie take place in OUR future. The Glock is the most used firearm by police around the world today and is also the most seen in film and TV production. Besides, the Victorian Police Force use them and the MFP were loosely based on them. If you look beyond the trailer.......you will find that Max indeed brandishes the old double blaster once more. If you want even more old school Max, he even steps up to the plate with the Bolt Cutters again.

Ahhh..... the lizard. In the five minute trailer shown at Comic Com, Max is taking a leak which attracts the attention of the mutant two headed lizard, got sharp living alone in the desert has Max and he stomps and eats the lizard. Welcome to a new world. If this is indeed the opening to the film, sheer genius from Miller.

The "low budget" and "not creative" stuff, I really cant comment on that.

There are plenty of New 2014 American Hotrods - real bad ass Muscle car Iron - that would have looked amazing decked out all post apocalyptic - hell maybe a Prius dead on the side of the road would have been funny as hell too.

If Max gets skittish from a lizard he is in deep do-do then and not much of a "warrior".

Then I suggest you find an American director capable and willing to make it.

Nothing really made sense in your post, what`s Max skittish over a lizard about? Just in case you really don't get it, though I suspect you don't get it by design,
there`s no cans of dog food in the back of the car this time, you take it from there. Your really pushing the troll envelope at the moment._________________Formerly offworld66

I've known bad ass/special ops, who were afraid of spiders...that doesn't make them less of a warrior
The whole "feel" of Mad Max is there, including the type of cars that we're use to see in this type of film (and I'm glad Miller stick to the same design)!

I do like the original MM look for 1980s - but times have changed and this higher budgeted reboot looks exactly the same. There are plenty of New 2014 American Hotrods - real bad ass Muscle car Iron - that would have looked amazing decked out all post apocalyptic

Hirohawa, have you considered that things may not evolve so fast in a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland? Much of this film is about retro and people making do and it doesn't seem like you're getting that..

The stills, sets and props look very low budget and not very creative.

I'm pretty sure that's intentional. Props are supposed look like stuff people have scavenged around or put together by themselves using whatever junk survived the collapse of civilization. So any "high budget" props would look out of place and out of continuity with the previous movies._________________

It's called tone and character consistency - stepping on a small helpless animal and eating it is not heroic for a fictional film - you know like how Book of Eli starts with Denzel killing and eating a cat - would it happen in real life - sure - but these are fictional heroes and should be up to a better standard.

In 1979 this pioneering style and post apocalyptic look that Miller achieved was incredible especially clever as his budget and lack of resources in Australia played a part in the design. It also resonated culturally with the gas shortages as well as the nuclear scare/cold war looming over everyone.

Now several decades have passed and there have been many many post apocalyptic films, and we get basically the same look with an untested leading man - not actor or support which he is great at - lead. Tom Hardy is not nor will he ever be a Mel Gibson. In five years when the hype dies down and the reality sets in he will be another Eric Bana or Gerard Butler. This film will not resonate with audiences and will have nowhere near the impact that the original stories had and at over $100 million budget it will also not be profitable. My guess is it will make around $85 million in the US.

This is a niche film and is too specific to find a broad audience. The originals where cult classics - never tentpoles. And to be honest the idea had run thin by Thunderdome - which was not a very good film.

Most reboots are awful and are calculated exercises in greed and profiting off of nostalgia with very few exceptions - the last two Planet of the Apes are good example of making the story and look modern and still staying true to it's roots while making great films.

Mr Webber wrote:

hirohawa wrote:

I don't get to 40 year old cars and modern guns?

There are plenty of New 2014 American Hotrods - real bad ass Muscle car Iron - that would have looked amazing decked out all post apocalyptic - hell maybe a Prius dead on the side of the road would have been funny as hell too.

If Max gets skittish from a lizard he is in deep do-do then and not much of a "warrior".

Then I suggest you find an American director capable and willing to make it.

Nothing really made sense in your post, what`s Max skittish over a lizard about? Just in case you really don't get it, though I suspect you don't get it by design,
there`s no cans of dog food in the back of the car this time, you take it from there. Your really pushing the troll envelope at the moment.

It's called tone and character consistency - stepping on a small helpless animal and eating it is not heroic for a fictional film - you know like how Book of Eli starts with Denzel killing and eating a cat - would it happen in real life - sure - but these are fictional heroes and should be up to a better standard.

In 1979 this pioneering style and post apocalyptic look that Miller achieved was incredible especially clever as his budget and lack of resources in Australia played a part in the design. It also resonated culturally with the gas shortages as well as the nuclear scare/cold war looming over everyone.

Now several decades have passed and there have been many many post apocalyptic films, and we get basically the same look with an untested leading man - not actor or support which he is great at - lead. Tom Hardy is not nor will he ever be a Mel Gibson. In five years when the hype dies down and the reality sets in he will be another Eric Bana or Gerard Butler. This film will not resonate with audiences and will have nowhere near the impact that the original stories had and at over $100 million budget it will also not be profitable. My guess is it will make around $85 million in the US.

This is a niche film and is too specific to find a broad audience. The originals where cult classics - never tentpoles. And to be honest the idea had run thin by Thunderdome - which was not a very good film.

Most reboots are awful and are calculated exercises in greed and profiting off of nostalgia with very few exceptions - the last two Planet of the Apes are good example of making the story and look modern and still staying true to it's roots while making great films.

I agree, lots of remakes and reboots lately have been total disappointments. But in this particular case I'm not totally pessimistic since the original director is involved. So far, the preview looks visually good to me. But previews are not always a good indicator of the movie quality. Good visuals are often ruined by a poor story.

Let's just hope this is not another "Indiana Jones 4"..._________________

I agree, lots of remakes and reboots lately have been total disappointments. But in this particular case I'm not totally pessimistic since the original director is involved. So far, the preview looks visually good to me. But previews are not always a good indicator of the movie quality. Good visuals are often ruined by a poor story.

Let's just hope this is not another "Indiana Jones 4"...

Yup. Very well said.

A great example is this summer's Godzilla incredible trailer not so great movie - and that's being kind.